Thank you for your polite qualification. Among a thousand words you point out the only "opposite". If I grant, I decide how and when, not OSM(F). The whole process of ODBL and CT is all about data-protection and not about free data.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:[email protected]] Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 12:14 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT) Bullshit, in the music industry you grant -exclusive- rights, the CTs stipulate the opposite. Simon Am 17.04.2011 12:06, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: > > >> FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's >> CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his >> own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So >> this should be less problematic than the FSF situation. > > That is like writing a song, and grant the rights to do with it what > he wants to the publisher. You seen where that leads to in the music > business. > Same for OSM. The CT-phrase in particular must be copied from them. > > > > Gert > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
